Mercury Facts, or truth in advertising

[KafirChobee]

I was rather taken back last week when I turned over my USN&WR to see an advertisment claiming that mercury in fish is safe, and it is all a myth that it can harm anyone. Unless of course they eat large amounts of whale meat.

I mean, I live on a river near a lake that have warnings about eating the fish - atleast over cunsumption of them. All things in moderation, you know? So, I became curious about this claim that mercury levels have fallen to an acceptable level and that we can now eat more than one can of tuna a week without any ill effects (they really don't say anything about pregnant women, but it is assumed even they no longer need be concerned about birth defects and should eat all the fish they desire).

This is the sight (they claim approval by the EPA, which would be of no surprise seeing as who is running it today - big business):

http://www.mercuryfacts.org
feel free to browse the site - it is run by one of those new consumer interests groups - probably associated with the fishing and mining industries.

Other sites of interests, with the real facts about mercury:
http://www.ingham.org/hd/lepc/pamphlets/hazwaste/mercuryfacts.html
http://www.ingham.org/hd/lepc/pamphlets/hazwaste/table2mercury.html

http://www.dnsc.dla.mil/eis/documents/FS/Mercury_FS.pdf

http://www.serconline.org/mercury/fact.html

The real question here is - what ever happened to truth in advertising? By using or forming an organization that opposes the truth can we then have a blurring of the real facts to support the false contentions of special interests? Is it done to by pass the legal system, or is it used just to promote the interests of an industry without their actually showing their faces?

Personally, I think it is outrageous - to say nothing about immoral. :no:

[yesdachi]

The real question here is - what ever happened to truth in advertising?
:laugh4:
If there was ever truthful advertising, especially about something sensitive like mercury, it was probably by mistake or coincidence.

[Aenlic]

Well that's odd, because I recently saw a news program stating that Consumer Reports was suggesting that pregnant women avoid canned light tuna altogether rather than the government recommendation of no more than 6 oz per week of albacore tuna and 12 ounces per week of canned light tuna.

If that mercuryfacts.org group is telling the truth about the approval of the EPA and that mercury levels are no longer a problem, then why does the U.S. Tuna Foundation say the following in response to the article by Consumer Reports?

"The U.S. Tuna Foundation, a trade group, said the magazine was overreacting to a minor problem. It said the nutritional benefits of seafood easily outweigh the risk posed by "trace amounts of mercury" and said scientific research shows the federal guidelines on consumption are sound." (source CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/diet.fitness/06/06/canned.tuna.reut/index.html))

They can't have it both ways. The trade group one would expect to be most against the standard says the federal guidelines are sound. And yet this group, which I'm willing to bet includes some crossover with the Tuna Foundation, says the federal guidelines are unsound! Looks to me like they're speaking out of both sides of their mouths. That's usually a pretty sure sign of money making the lips move instead of reason. :wink:

[discovery1]

You wouldn't happen to have a scanner would you?

[Papewaio]

Who funds you guys? How about some "full disclosure"?
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.

Which kind of makes this an understatement:


Do you have a bias?
Yes! We believe that only you know what's best for you. When activists twist science or ignore important facts to enforce their vision of society on others, we don’t take it lying down.

Make people feel good and ignore the advice from health experts...

[KafirChobee]

:laugh4:
If there was ever truthful advertising, especially about something sensitive like mercury, it was probably by mistake or coincidence.

Actually, Yes, there were laws passed in the 1960's and 70's (possibly earlier) that laid out a program of what product sponsors could promote about their product and how they should do it. As I said recently in another post, one of my favorite commercials of the '60s was banned for being "inable to support to support its premise" - it was by Chung King (canned chop suey) and said 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Chung King over all others. It then showed 9 Chinese doctors and a goy. It was hillarious. Thing is, it may not have been the truth - but it was funny. It was never meant to be taken seriously, but this new ploy obviously is.

Are we to assume that it is now alright for anyone with a negative agenda to spout what ever they wish, just to promote it?

Which brings me back to "truth in advertising". Have the issues of gay marriage, flag desicration (or freedom of expression), immigration (versus illegal employment practices), and all the other election year hot button issues of the Right - overwhelmed the duties of our Congress to focus on even the simplest practice of assuring that those advertising a message (aside from themselves) have at atleast a modicum of truth? Probably, but one can only hope it is an small oversight. Oh, well. :no:

[KafirChobee]

Cube, you get it - but, why do you refuse to expand on the premise to all aspects of American life? I understand it is easier to simply agree with a premise than use definitions that explain or define them; but, why do you make a simple statement and not expand on it? With your knowledge and access to facts, why not expand on the issue? Why not be definitive in your object overview of what and why the new legalization of say anything - even if it ain't the truth is being allowed.

Personally, you maybe able to define the real issues better than I - and actually get the response from those that enjoy the misconstruence of truth, better than I myself. Especially, since often times it is easier to ignore the opposition - versus facing them and having to answer their questions or address their answers.

So, give me a break - and a hand, and expand on your summation. Please.

[Aenlic]

What happens when the radio or TV station is a subsidiary of the corporation making false claims?

Is it just caveat emptor then GC?

I recommend that you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. The book was largely responsible for the establishment of the FDA and laws governing meat inspection.

This idea that corporations have the best interests of their customers at heart is just not supported by history. In very rare instances, such might be the case; but for the most part, corporations are concerned only with profit, and are only concerned with their image in so far as it affects their profit. As an example, did you ever hear of Archer Daniels Midland until some of the executives went to jail for price fixing after being investigated by the FBI, and suddenly ADM commercials started popping up all over TV talking about all the good things they do? That's a case in point.

[Aenlic]

But isn't there a line when it comes to selling your shoes as steak and claiming that they're steak? I'm not saying that your claim is that corporations have our best interests at heart. I'm questioning your stance that we shouldn't be able to stop them, or at least try to stop them, from lying.

If the chemical company up the road assures us that they are not polluting the water supply and that everything is just fine and dandy, are we just supposed to not care until the river catches fire?

Do you own any stock? Do you feel there should be no SEC to at least attempt to ensure that the stock you own isn't in another Enron? You're fine with just believing the company when they say everything is copacetic?

Frankly, I just don't get this belief that the world would be a better place if corporations were allowed to do whatever they wanted without any regulation and oversight. They've proven time and again that they aren't capable of regulating themselves.

[yesdachi]

I know if I ran a radio station or TV station I would make companies verify their claims before I aired their commercials, but that's about as far as I can ask anyone to go.
TV and radio stations choose to not run or air commercials all the time. I have seen some of the ones that were not allowed to air and holy cow, I can’t imagine some people would even try to run them. Some of the most outrageous ones are the political ones. :dizzy2:

[Hurin_Rules]

One of my favorites was the one about 'clean coal' technology (you know, the industry that puts the most pollutants into our atmosphere?). They made the claim that since newer coal plants were less polluting than old ones, coal plants were now in effect cleaning the atmosphere.

That's what you get when Republicans run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Cheney gives the oil companies a blank cheque to determine US energy policy (no wonder he didn't want to reveal who sat in on THOSE meetings!).

[rory_20_uk]

E.g. Medications on the Internet. There's no proof beyond the ads what's in the tablets. Some may be OK, but others are dangerous.

Often these are not outright banned and it is up to consumers - often with not enough knowledge - to assess them.

~:smoking:

[Geezer57]

Getting back to mercury in fish: choose small, young fish over large, older ones. Short lives and low body weight mean the organism has less time to accumulate and concentrate toxins, and so make better food sources. Think anchovies/sardines over tuna, etc.

Also avoid fish-farm product - look for fish harvested in the wild. Farm ponds tend to collect agricultural runoff (pesticides, etc.), and the fish raised there are fed from feed pellets, rather than the variety of diet found in the wild.

[Blodrast]

But you see, it probably is. Somewhere in the very very fine print. Or somewhere in some brochure which you can get free of charge if you call this toll-free number, 24/7. Or something like that.

See, the problem is, Cube, if you piss on your shoes and try to sell it as a steak, it's okay, because it's pretty obvious it's not a steak. But if some dudes (who, by the way, have some authority and knowledge in the field), claim that the fish is safe to eat, when it is not, that's an entirely different story.
Do you see the difference ? Any non-challenged person can verify that your pissed-on shoes are not a steak, and they won't eat it. However, the same does not apply to the other case: how the hell am I, Joe blow, supposed to know that the damn fish is NOT safe to eat, when they tell me it is ?! And again, they are _some_ of the people with the authority and knowledge to make that claim. I can't verify it for myself, so I'll have to trust their data. I obviously cannot take a sample of 253 fish over an interval of 6 months and do specialized measurements to see how much mercury they have in their intestines !!

Sure, one can claim "well, why don't you get informed ? Go on the net, read magazines/newspapers/etc, you'll see there are others who do tell you that it's not safe to eat". True, but completely beside the point, for two reasons:
1. It doesn't change the fact that they are lying, which is wrong. The solution isn't for me to get informed better, but for them to stop lying.
2. It is not realistic or reasonable. Because the same line of thought can be applied to anything that was ever thought to be carcinogenic - should I go on the web each time they change my brand of margerine ? I think not.

PS. GC, please don't take this as an argument directed against you - it is not. I was merely using your example to show how and why this false advertising IS hurting.
And thank you, but I won't have that steak. :laugh4:

[Blodrast]

Ok, maybe "authority" was a poorly chosen term.
This is what I meant and implied by using that term: in my mind (and I may be dead wrong here, so if that is the case, please feel free to correct me), I imagine that among their responsibilities they count an actual serious, scientific verification of the concentration of mercury in the fish (and not just mercury, toxins, pesticides, etc, etc - general verifications to establish whether the fish is healthy to eat or not, basically). This means (again, in my mind), that they do exactly what I was tongue-in-cheek suggesting in my above post: they take samples of fish periodically, they analyze it in a chemical lab, they take measurements, they keep logs of the results over the last xx years, and so on.
They are qualified and capable to do this, it's part of their job.

That's what I meant when I said "authority". Of course there may be other agencies capable/willing to do the same thing, the point is that they are, as well.

edit: whether they are from the government or not bears no implication on whether they are an authority in that field. I meant "authority" as in "highly qualified and knowledgeable about something", not as in "the authorities will pick you up if you rape that helpless old lady". Sorry if that caused a misunderstanding.

[Aenlic]

If they're not from the government, then they aren't beholden to you or anyone but their investors. While lying on their part is laothesome, it is their right. If anyone is going to do something about it, it should be the people who own stock in their research programs. Those programs aren't cheap, after all.

If they're willing to lie to the public, then what would stop them from lying to their investors? You do remember Enron, yes? The investors were completely clueless because the corporation and the auditing firm were in on it together! How are investors supposed to get the truth then? Hope that someone comes down with a conscience inside the scam?

I'm sorry, GC, but your position just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something. :inquisitive:

[Blodrast]

I think the focus is shifting in the wrong direction. What if you (or me, for that matter) want to buy that fish to eat it, and you (or me) do not own stocks in that damned company ? Please don't tell me you don't buy any food products from any company you don't personally own stock in ...

Will you in that case agree to suffer because the company shareholders are, according to your logic, irresponsible ?

[Blodrast]

But that's my point: how do you make so sure ?
You just look at the meat seal which says "safe for eating, blah, blah, federally approved, etc, etc". Right ? It's exactly the same thing. "Federally approved" doesn't mean that someone who is being paid by the federal gov't has personally inspected that meat. It only means that the meat was inspected by the meat packaging plant personnel, and found to be in accordance with some (federal) gov't regulations.

Just like I said earlier, if the people who package the stuff, who sell the stuff, who are in charge of the stuff, be it meat, fish, or whatever else, if they lie, the customer suffers, because they are responsible. Not the gov't, not the shareholders, not anybody else. They do the inspection and they draw the conclusions and make the recommendations whether it's good to eat or not. And it's their seal of approval that's on the stuff you buy that makes you feel "damn sure" it's safe...

[Blodrast]

:bow:
Thank you, Honourable Sir (and no, that was not sarcastic). And I will gladly concede that sheeple should not be so irresponsible lazy placid buggers and take a bit more interest in what the hell is going on around them, instead of reshaping their couches with their butts.

[Aenlic]

Who decides what's accurate? The company? An outside group, like Arthur Andersen which was supposed to be accurately auditing Enron? The government?

I'm not in favor of laws to restrict personal freedom. You should be able to buy disease-infected, toxin-riddled food if you so desire - for your own consumption only, of course. However, you have a right to know if that food is disease-infected and toxin-riddled before buying it, don't you? And how are you to ascertain if your right is being protected? The maker certainly can't be trusted. Corporations have proven, time and again, that they can't be trusted. Outside agencies have proven time and again that they are susceptible to being paid off by the aforementioned corporations. Governments too.

That's why it is so vitally important that the people take charge of their own governments. It's the only way to ensure that the rights of the people, by consensus or minority-protected (very important!) democratic process, are insulated from the evils of concentrated power. Sadly, we've allowed that government of by and for the people, here in the USA, to slowly morph something much less - a government of by and for the wealthy/powerful/campaign-contributing/lobbying elite, which includes to a large degree - corporations. Not quite the same thing. :wink:

[Blodrast]

What do you think would be a solution, Aenlic ? I mean, there are laws in place already, it's just that they're not being respected, or they're bent (and then lubed, if the bending is not enough) to the limit, or, even if it gets to court for some irregularities that occasionally surface, the entire thing drags on for years and years until nobody even remembers what the hell it all started from...

I'm not being facetious, I'm asking a serious question. Assuming people (corporations) won't just make an about face and turn all honest overnight (which I believe is a fair assumption), how can one make sure it's all fair and square ?

[Aenlic]

Well first, in accordance with the initial wishes of the founding fathers of the USA, we severely restrict, if not outright make illegal, corporations. Corporations promote a lack of personal responsibility. They promote wealth without ethics.

One of those restrictions, which was also supported by the writers of the U.S. Constitution, would be to ensure that the government is free from the coercion of capital by making it illegal for corporations to attempt to influence the political process in any way. (Such laws were actually on the books of all the original states, until the corporations illegally influenced politics anyway and made the laws disappear within 100 years).

Make politicians accountable. Of course, from my own political stance, this means creating an anarcho-syndicalist system which rules from the bottom up rather than allowing elected representatives to make their own decisions (or, worse, make decisions based on outside influence, such as corporate wishes). That's the biggest flaw in a representative democracy, that the elected can promise all sorts of things which they promptly throw out after being elected, when they are then free to do the bidding of the money which supports them, rather than the people who elected them.

Failing all of the above, perhaps life in prison wthout parole for all of the executives of any corporation which causes harm via its products, if they knew in any way that their products would cause that harm. Obviously, accidents do happen. What the tobacco industry did in the 60's and 70's and even into the 90's was no accident. What Enron did was no accident. Of course, my solution will never happen; but I can dream, can't I? :wink:

[Blodrast]

*scratches head and squints at Aenlic's post*

Hehe:laugh4: None of those is likely to happen anytime soon, barring a planetary cataclysm.
I think a milder version of one of your suggestions would be nice, too - namely to have a hardcore judge or DA (better yet, one of each ;P), who would come down hard on some irresponsible CEOs or somesuch, with the purpose of setting an example - that might give others some incentive to be a little less dishonest...

Other than that, my friend, there is absolutely nothing wrong with dreaming, but be a gent and pass some of that nice grass over here, so we can both dream... ~;)

[Aenlic]

Is that a serious question, GC? I'll try to answer seriously, but give me a moment to stretch my serious muscles. They really don't get much use here. :wink:

The definition of a corporation is pretty clear cut; in the context of economics, which is the topic at hand I suppose, it is an entity granted a charter which makes it a separate legal entity from its individual employees/stockholders/members. In a sole proprietorship, for instance, if you go bankrupt, then you are responsible for the debt. If you were incorporated instead, then when you go bankrupt, only the corporation's assets are liable for the debt, not the CEO's personal assets (except in regards to stock in the corporation going down in value, perhaps). That goes for other employees and investors as well. The very nature of corporations is meant to insulate individual investors/employees from such a thing. Unless, of course, actual criminal wrong-doing can be proven in a court of law on the part of an individual within the corporation. This is the only way in which individuals are responsible in the actions of corporations. This might also open the individual to civil action for fraud and similar things which might allow a debtor to recover at least some of the assets.

Does that answer the question?

[Aenlic]

OK, good! Because, frankly, I'd much rather argue with you than with some of the neocons around here. You, at the very least, generally follow your convictions to their logical conclusions. So, though we are at opposite ends on the ideas of economics, when it comes to individual liberties we are pretty much on the same page. :2thumbsup:

[KafirChobee]

And with that GC, why not bind the CEO to his corporation's losses? Rather than rewarding them regardless of its success to the stock holders?

Still, late night TV (atleast on satellite) has 100+ advertisemental shows - mostly how to get rich, but also how to get a biggerdick, lose weight without any real excorcise (tho most suggest it is good if one does), how to sell their property, how to buy property, how to find a mate, how to ...... what ever. And no government agency bothers (seemingly) to challenge them. Seems appro pro, with todays attmosphere of anything goes as long as it doesn't kill someone.

Thing is, eatting fish in excess will kill you. Thing is, the government under the present administration is more concerned with corporate bottom lines than the welfare of the people (Americans) they were sworn to protect.

If it were just fish, I might look away and say screw it - anyone dumb enough to believe the sponsored propaganda deserves a kid with two heads or an early death from kidney or liver failure. Thing is, it affects my loved ones as well.

For them, I will call a spade a spade - and not get into some syntaxical reasoning that what ever is good for the economy is necessarilly going to be good for me .... or anyone else.

Meat! The Japs screen every cow, Europe - one outta 40, America? Well, ya see we do as we are paid - 1 outta every 40,000 (or by herd if a Mad cow shows up - which generally means ship the crap fast). Because we reject the idea that a business would ever do willfull harm .. yuck. yuck = guess know one reas Sinclare (ms) any more.

Advertising is as Congress allows. Congress makes, breaks, and redefines law as their sponsors see fit. That is the problem. There really is no solution - unless they allow a reduction to $50 as being the max an individual (corporation being an individual) can contribute to an election fund. Yeah, imagine the Democrats will bring that up tommorow - not.

We live in a duplistic society where the contenders are the same entity (as being owned by the same economically powerful individuals - corporations, wealthy families, AMD, MICC, etc), it makes it more than a bit difficult to expect honesty. But, out and out lying? Well, one would expect their government representatives to be looking out for their health if not their wallets.

I suppose, it is now obvious, we can have neither. Sell a finger, sell the hand. Sell the hand, sell the arm ... etc.

[KafirChobee]

Maybe, I could have retitled it "Truth in News". but it would be an irrelevancy since that is a self serving (adopted) perspective versas an objective one. It is easier to accept the beiliefs of the Father, than challenge them - especially if one has nothing to lose by accepting the proven fact of staying the hell away from joining the military (while at the same time proclaiming ones undying support - keeps one free, don't it?)

Five deferments - that kept our brave VP away from 'nam. That and his girlfriend's (wife's) Dad. But, why hold that against a coward? Unless the coward is fearless in sending other American sons to die - in his place, or for oil, his former Corporation, or because ...........

Anyway, those that accept the present policys' of the Admin? I bid you Bon appitetit (ms).

Lastly, those that believe that Bush43 is doing something in their favor? How f'n wealthy are you? Only $billionaires$ count you know? Ranger (those bringing in $20million+) are a joke. It is the hidden money that counts in American politics - why own one party, when you can own both.